ArticleOrthopaedic journal of sports medicine2024
Primary Versus Revision ACL Reconstruction Using Quadriceps Autograft: A Matched-Control Cohort Study.
Article in Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Clinical Outcomes of Primary Versus Revision Hip Arthroscopic Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.The American journal of sports medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Comparison of Return-to-Sport and Patient-Reported Outcomes Between Primary and Revision ACL Reconstruction: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2026Review
- How Are We Matching in ACL Reconstruction Research? A Systematic Review of Methods, Reporting, and Covariate Selection.Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2026Review
- Clinical outcomes of quadriceps, hamstring, and bone-patellar tendon-bone autografts for ACL reconstruction: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Knee surgery & related research · 2026Review
- Arthroscopic Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction With Independently Tensioned Internal Brace Augmentation.Arthroscopy techniques · 2025Article
- Patient Acceptable Symptom State Thresholds for the Lysholm Knee Scoring Scale in Patients After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction.Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2025Article
- Clinical and Radiological Outcomes of Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Using a Quadriceps Tendon Autograft with a Bone Block: A Single-Center Case Series.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Article
- Revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction and additional surgeries: A review.Medicine · 2025Review
- Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Basics: Quadriceps Tendon (All-Soft Tissue) Autograft Preparation-Part 2.Arthroscopy techniques · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The incidence of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is increasing, and quadriceps tendon (QT) autograft is gaining popularity for both primary and revision ACL reconstruction. Purpose: To evaluate the differences in the patient-reported functional outcomes, concomitant injuries, and graft failure in primary versus revision ACL surgery using QT autograft. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: A total of 376 patients with primary ACL reconstruction and 138 patients with revision ACL reconstruction were retrospectively retrieved from a prospectively collected ACL registry. A minimally invasive technique was used for QT autograft harvesting. The surgical procedure and rehabilitation protocol were identical in both groups. To maintain a homogeneous cohort for the study, the groups were matched by age, sex, and preinjury outcome scores (Lysholm knee score, Tegner activity level, and visual analog scale [VAS] for pain). Initial baseline assessments of outcome scores were compared with scores collected at the 2-year postoperative mark. Results: The mean age of the primary group and revision group was 32.9 ± 10.2 years (range, 18-55 years) and 32.3 ± 9.9 years (range, 19-55 years) respectively. Significant preinjury to postoperative improvements were noted in Lysholm (88.2 ± 16.4 vs 83.5 ± 15.0; Conclusion: Both primary and revision ACL reconstruction with QT autograft had acceptable functional outcomes. The primary group had better outcomes than the revision group, possibly due to the lower prevalence of meniscal and cartilage injuries in the primary group compared with the revision group. The revision group was associated with higher graft failure than the primary group. QT autograft is a viable graft choice for both primary and revision ACL reconstruction.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.